28 September 2012

No simplistic aphorisms. No New Age mumbo-jumbo. No treacly flattery,
or cheery exhortations to ‘think positive’. Just science and philosophy, presented
by someone who is adept at both.

I’m a regular reader of Massimo Pigliucci’s blog
Rationally Speaking, where he and his co-bloggers take a philosophical
approach to topics of common human concern: ethics, politics, religion, economics,
education, science, technology, art, culture, emotions, consciousness. Pigliucci
is a trained biologist who currently teaches philosophy at the City University
of New York, and his new book Answers for Aristotle: How Science and Philosophy Can Lead Us to a More Meaningful Life is essentially a physical
manifestation of his life’s work: to show how science and philosophy reinforce
each other in creating knowledge and wisdom, in helping us understand both the
world and ourselves. As he puts it:

The basic idea is to explore “the big
questions” (you know, the usual suspects: morality, relationships, politics)
from the joint perspective of the best science and the most compelling
philosophy available to date. After all, the standard answers to those
questions come from either religion or folk wisdom, the first one being based
on imaginary entities and their arbitrary pronouncements, and the second being,
shall we say, somewhat more fallible than one would wish.

In this respect Pigliucci differs from notable intellectuals
like Sam Harris, Stephen Hawking and Lawrence Krauss, since these three (to
varying degrees) place greater store by science than philosophy. Pigliucci
has taken both Harris and Krauss to task for their dismissive
attitude to philosophy and corresponding glorification of science. I used to be
sympathetic to Harris’s argument that science can answer moral questions,
but Pigliucci’s counter-arguments were very persuasive. While I still dislike
the term ‘scientism’ (used pejoratively to imply a reductionist worldview,
which I think is inaccurate and unfair), I do agree with Pigliucci that good
science requires sound philosophical premises and justifications, and that the ‘big questions’ cannot all be answered by science alone.

Answers for Aristotle is definitely going
on my to-read list. I have a feeling that it will be ‘meatier’ than similar
self-improvement books by philosophers like Alain De Botton or AC Grayling, due
to the science.Judging by his blog
posts and magazine articles, Pigliucci is an eloquent, knowledgeable writer who can bridge the (perhaps illusory) gap between science and
philosophy for his readers, enriching their lives in the process.

25 September 2012

Doctor and science writer Ben Goldacre has a new book, Bad Pharma: How Drug Companies Mislead Doctors and Harm Patients, that exposes in meticulous detail what many of us already
suspect: pharmaceutical companies fudge the results of their drug trials in
order to sell drugs that don’t work, or that are actually harmful. The cynics are
right, though it would give them little satisfaction to learn the depressing
extent of Big Pharma’s corruption.

Because researchers are free to bury any
result they please, patients are exposed to harm on a staggering scale
throughout the whole of medicine. Doctors can have no idea about the true
effects of the treatments they give. Does this drug really work best, or have I
simply been deprived of half the data? No one can tell. Is this expensive drug
worth the money, or has the data simply been massaged? No one can tell. Will
this drug kill patients? Is there any evidence that it's dangerous? No one can
tell. This is a bizarre situation to arise in medicine, a discipline in which
everything is supposed to be based on evidence.

Proponents of ‘alternative’ medicine and other New Age
quackery will be quick to pounce. They will feel vindicated for their distrust
of modern drugs and the corrupt system that makes and markets them. Goldacre’s
findings may prove Big Pharma’s critics right about its unethical practices,
but these critics commit the logical fallacy known as ignoratio elenchi, or irrelevant conclusion, if they think that Big Pharma’s
unethical actions prove the efficacy of ‘alternative’
medicine. They don’t. What they do show is that more
scientific skepticism and rigour is needed, not less. The fact that Big Pharma
is largely a corrupt industry that puts profits before patients doesn’t mean
that homeopathy works, or that vaccines cause autism.

Goldacre is certainly not an ally of the quacks. In his previous
book, Bad Science, he debunked pseudoscientific claims about
‘alternative’ medicine, vaccines and consumer products, and also criticised the
way that the media misrepresents science, thereby misinforming the public. I
highly recommend it as a much needed corrective to the misconceptions and false
beliefs that we all have about health matters. And Goldacre is an engaging
writer, leavening his statistical analysis with vivid anecdotes and passionate
arguments. His new book will no doubt fulfill a similar purpose; to wake up
readers with a splash of cold, hard facts, however unpleasant it may be, and to
propose solutions to a chronic and widespread problem that affects us all.

19 September 2012

Unless you just woke up 5 minutes ago from a decade-long cryogenic
sleep, you would know about the Muslim riots in response to an execrable film
that insults the prophet Muhammad. Bad taste and dirty tricks aside, the film Innocence
of Muslims is the latest work that has elicited a grossly disproportionate
reaction from many Muslims. Of course, certain liberals can be counted on to,
if not condone, then at least rationalise the murders and violence by blaming
the ‘provocative’ critics of Islam for being insensitive, even reckless.
Nevermind that the victims of Muslim fanaticism are often innocent people who
had nothing to do with the offensive film, or book, or poem, or cartoon.
Nevermind that no amount of offense ever justifies physical violence and brutality.

Free speech fail.

These politically correct scolds who refuse to unconditionally
condemn Muslim savagery can only encourage those like Turkish prime minister Recep
Tayyip Erdoğan, who wants to outlaw “attacks on religion”. In an absurd black-is-white
statement, Erdoğan equated the silencing of religious criticism with respecting freedom of thought and belief:

Freedom of thought and belief ends where
the freedom of thought and belief of others start. You can say anything about
your thoughts and beliefs, but you will have to stop when you are at the border
of others’ freedoms.

If Erdoğan is alluding to that famous catchphrase of
individual freedom, “The right to swing my fist ends where the other man’s nose begins”,
he only shows just how far he misses the point of that statement. Firstly,
offending a person’s beliefs, religious or not, is not the same as physically
assaulting them. Secondly, the arbitrary nature of what is deemed offensive
makes it practically impossible to avoid offending someone somewhere. Many
Islamic beliefs are highly offensive to secularists like me. So do Muslims violate
my freedom by simply holding and expressing those beliefs? Thirdly, Erdoğan’s
bizarre adaptation of the “swing my fist” statement would mean that no one
is allowed to discuss, criticise, debate or even comment on beliefs and ideas
that they themselves do not hold.

By Erdoğan’s reasoning, you can’t give your opinion on
Marxism unless you’re a Marxist. You can’t point out the flaws of
libertarianism unless you’re a staunch free market advocate. And you
definitely can’t criticise the regressive, sexist,
irrational, violent aspects of Islam unless you acknowledge that there is no
God but Allah, and Muhammad is his prophet (even then there is no guarantee
that you won’t be viciously set upon by your fellow Muslims for casting
aspersions on the faith).

Erdoğan has also compared ‘Islamophobia’ to anti-semitism, saying
that “Turkey recognizes anti-semitism as a crime, while not a single Western
country recognizes Islamophobia as such.” False equivalence much? Muslims
constantly try to deflect legitimate criticism of their beliefs and values by
confusing an ideology with an ethnicity. It
doesn’t matter that Muslims may consider their beliefs to be indistinguishable
from their personhood, because they are wrong to do so. By
their logic, anyone who holds particular beliefs, however odious or harmful, is
exempt from criticism so long as they identify strongly enough with those
beliefs. A Neo-Nazi can therefore justifiably claim to be a victim of persecution
when he is criticised, since his sense of self is inextricably bound up with
his ideology.

Turkey under Erdoğan and his Islamist Justice and Development Party has become more
conservative in recent years, with an increasingly religious bent to its
politics. For a country that aspires to be a secular, democratic model for
other Muslim-majority countries, its prime minister gives the worrying
impression that he seeks to undermine that aspiration, whether for ideological
or political reasons.

13 September 2012

No, it’s not because I’ve suddenly acquired a carnal desire
for my fellow penis owners. It’s because I’ve decided to wear more light
colours as warmer, sunnier days arrive in these antipodean lands.

How do I know that my sexual reorientation is impending?
Certain Malaysian individuals, in their wisdom and magnanimity, have published
a set of government-endorsed guidelines describing the “symptoms” of homosexuality,
so that concerned parents may identify and correct their offspring’s budding
gayness before it fully and irrevocably manifests. These flagrant signs of depravity
include having a preference for “tight and light-coloured clothes”. Since I intend
to wear comfortably loose light-coloured clothes, does this make me half
gay? I’m also not a fan of “V-neck and sleeveless clothes”, so I must be only
one-third gay.

Some examples of gay clothing.

Reading further, I am indeed “attracted to women” and certainly
like to “hang out, have meals and sleep in the company of women.” Hey, I’m
actually a lesbian!

Progressive, liberal Malaysians should respond with a set of
guidelines listing the symptoms of regressive homophobic bigots. Some
suggestions:

Have a muscular prejudice against
non-heterosexuality, and like to show their bigotry with ill-conceived
guidelines and irresponsible scaremongering.

Prefer conformist and ignorant audience for
their message.

Attracted to policing people’s sexuality; and

Like to bring a big sense of moral superiority,
similar to that used by ideological extremists, when hanging out.